On the Voiceless Reflex of *ṣ́ and *ṯ̣ in pre-Hilalian Maghrebian Arabic

Author(s): Ahmad Al-Jallad

Source: Zeitschrift für Arabische Linguistik, No. 62 (2015), pp. 88-95
Published by: Harrassowitz Verlag
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.13173/zeitarabling.62.0088
Accessed: 11-10-2017 10:18 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.13173/zeitarabling.62.0088?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Harrassowitz Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Zeitschrift für Arabische Linguistik

This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:18:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 On the Voiceless Re%ex of *ṣ́ and *ṯ ̣
in pre-Hilalian Maghrebian Arabic1
Ahmad Al-Jallad*

Abstract: This paper argues that the voiceless re%ex of the emphatics *ṣ́
(ḍād) and *ṯ ̣ (ẓāʾ) in some pre‑Hilalian Maghrebian Arabic dialects is in fact
an archaism. These phonemes were voiceless in Old Arabic, as proven by
Greek transcriptions from the pre-Islamic period, and so pre‑Hilalian Ma-
ghrebian Arabic may continue the original situation. The voiced re%exes,
more common in other modern Arabic dialects and in the conventional pro-
nunciation of Classical Arabic, are then interpreted as a later development.
Keywords: Arabic dialectology, Maghrebian Arabic, emphatic consonants,
pre‑Hilalian, Old Arabic, phonology

1 Introduction
Advances in the comparative grammar of the Semitic languages in the 20th
century have helped dispel the view of Classical Arabic (CAr) as the most
archaic Semitic language.2 At almost every linguistic layer, CAr exhibits im-
portant innovations distinguishing it from Proto-Semitic (PS), and even
from its more direct ancestor, Proto‑Arabic.3 There is at least one domain,
however, in which this belief obtains – phonology. While CAr is unarguably
conservative in that it keeps separate 28 of the 29 PS phonemes, merging
only *s (s1) and *ts (s3) to [s], the phonetic realization of these phonemes is
to be considered highly innovative. A reassessment of the evidence from the

1 The abbreviations used in this paper are – PS: Proto-Semitic; NWS: Northwest
Semitic; CAr: Classical Arabic.
2 On these features, see HUEHNERGARD (forthcoming) and AL-JALLAD (forth-
coming).
3 See AL-JALLAD (2014; 2015 a, b).
* Faculteit der Geesteswetenschappen, Institute for Area Studies (LIAS), Leiden
University, a.m.al-jallad@hum.leidenuniv.nl

This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:18:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Pre-Hilalian Emphatics 89

pre‑Islamic period, however, suggests that Old Arabic4 was more conserva-
tive in this respect than CAr and most of the modern dialects (see AL‑JALLAD
2015b). An exception is some of the pre‑Hilalian dialects of North Africa.
This paper will re‑examine the realization of the emphatics of these varie-
ties in light of Old Arabic and PS, and argue that they in fact better re%ect
the original Arabic situation.

2 The emphatics, an overview

There is a virtual consensus today that the emphatic correlate in PS was
glottalization.5 Glottalized consonants are preserved in the Modern South
Arabian languages, Ethio-Semitic, and can be reasonably posited for Akkadi-
an and early NWS. Since glottalization requires the full closure of the vocal
cords, they cannot be con*gured for voice. Additionally, there are articula-
tory reasons to argue that the emphatic lateral and interdental had a
stop‑onset.6 The following table lists the reconstructed values of the PS em-
phatic series with their CAr re%exes:

Table 1: Proto-Semitic and Classical Arabic re-exes of the emphatics

Proto-Semitic CAr (conventional pronunciation)
*[tθ’] [ðʕ]
*[t’] [tʕ]
*[ts’] [sʕ]
*[tɬ’] [ɮʕ]
*[k’] [q]

The exact developmental trajectory of these phonemes in Arabic is still de-

bated by specialists and their Proto-Arabic values remain uncertain.
HUEHNERGARD (forthcoming) suggests that pharyngealization was a fea-
ture of Proto‑Arabic while AL-JALLAD (2015b) leaves open the possibility

4 Old Arabic is used here to refer to the pre-Islamic dialects of Arabic attested in
documentary sources, such as epigraphy and papyri, and not materials attributed
to the pre-Islamic period by Arabo-Islamic traditions.
5 KOGAN (2011: 60+).
6 Glottalized sibilants and interdentals are extremely rare cross-linguistically, and
so it may have been the case that these sounds were a+ricates, like *ṣ, see
KOGAN (2011: 71).

This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:18:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
90 A. Al-Jallad

for at least some members of the series to have been realized as glottalics.7
In addition to the ancient evidence, there are some contemporary south-
western Arabian dialects of Arabic that realize these consonants as glotta-
lized in certain environments, but this could be due to substrate in%uence
from Ancient or Modern South Arabian.8
Our main source for the phonology of Old Arabic comes from Greek
transcriptions from the pre‑Islamic period. While the Greek glyphs cannot
supply unambiguous evidence for glottalization, they do prove that the Old
Arabic series was entirely voiceless, a fact compatible with both glottaliza-
tion and pharyngealization.9 Thus, the evidence from Syria proves that
Proto‑Arabic at least maintained the original voiceless quality of the empha-
tic series, regardless of whether or not they had become phrayngealized.
The following table gives a reconstruction of the Proto‑Arabic emphatics as
voiceless, without explicitly taking a position on the quality of the emphatic
correlate.

Table 2: Proto-Arabic Re-exes of Proto-Semitic Emphatics

Proto-Semitic Proto-Arabic
*[tθ’] *ṯ ̣
*[t’] *ṭ
*[ts’] *ṣ
*[tɬ’] *ṣ́
*[k’] *q

2.1 From Proto-Arabic to Sibawayh10

Sibawayh endorses a voiced realization of both *ṭ = [dʕ] and *ṯ ̣ = [ðʕ], as
he lists the voiceless counterparts of these phonemes in his compilation of
pronunciations which are to be avoided in poetry and Qurʾānic recitation.

7 In Safaitic, the spelling of word boundary *q and *ʾ sometimes written simply as

q, perhaps suggesting a glottalized realization, /k’/ (AL-JALLAD, 2015a: §3.1.6).
8 See WATSON (2011: 899) for references and a discussion.
9 The dialect of Petra in the 6th c. CE, however, shows that pharyngealization had
set in, as it exhibits both voiced re%exes of the emphatics and the lowering of
high vowels contiguous with emphatics (AL-JALLAD 2015, §3.7).
10 The material from SIBAWAYH is drawn from the online Sibawiki project: http://
sydney.edu.au/arts/research_projects/sibawiki/homepage/

This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:18:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Pre-Hilalian Emphatics 91

For the re%exes of *q, *ṣ́, and *ṣ, the evidence is ambiguous – *ṣ́ had a
“weak” counterpart11, but it is hard understand this as having to do with
voicing features, and *ṣ has two sub-standard pronunciations, one like the z
and the other like the s. I have suggested elsewhere that this points towards
an a+ricated realization of the sound Sibawayh endorses, a pronunciation
supported by Greek transcriptions from the *rst Islamic century
(AL‑JALLAD 2014).
The conventional pronunciation of Classical Arabic, on the other hand,
does not seem to re%ect the system described by Sibawayh or Old Arabic.
Instead, the closest counterpart to this pronunciation is found in the dialects
of Anatolia, where only one change was experienced – the merger of *ṣ́ with
*ṯ ̣ to [ðʕ], a sound change typical of nearly all modern dialects of Arabic.
The Naǧdī dialects also exhibit a similar con*guration, but with a voiced
realization of *q.

Table 3: Re-exes of the emphatics in Anatolian and Naǧdī

Proto-Semitic CAr conventional pronunciation) Anatolian Naǧdī

*[tθ’] [ðʕ] [ðʕ] [ðʕ]

*[t’] [tʕ] [tʕ] [tʕ]
*[ts’] [sʕ] [sʕ] [sʕ]
*[tɬ’] [ɮʕ] [ðʕ] [ðʕ]
*[k’] [q] [q] [g]
Urban dialects of the Levant and most of North Africa can be derived from
an antecedent form similar to the Anatolian con*guration through two sound
changes: the shift of interdentals to stops and, in some cases, the shift q > ʔ.
Table 4: Re-exes of the Emphatics in Urban Dialects
Proto-form Cairo Northern Syria Damascus
[ðʕ] [dʕ] [dʕ] [dʕ]
[tʕ] [tʕ] [tʕ] [tʕ]
[sʕ] [sʕ] [sʕ] [sʕ]
[ðʕ] [dʕ] [dʕ] [dʕ]
[q] [ʔ] [q] [ʔ]

11 SIBAWAYH calls this ‫ﺍﻟﻀﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻀﻌﻴﻔﺔ‬.

This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:18:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
92 A. Al-Jallad

3 Pre-Hilalian Maghrebian
The foregone discussion gives the impression that the voiceless con*gura-
tion of the emphatics in Proto‑Arabic and the Old Arabic from the Levant
does not continue into the modern dialects. Instead, the modern colloquials
descend from a mixed series as found in Anatolian Arabic, upon which the
conventional pronunciation of CAr may have been based. There is, however,
one group of dialects that may constitute an exception – the pre‑Hilalian
Maghrebian dialects. As is well known, ḍ, the re%ex of *ṣ́ and *ṯ,̣ and ṭ have
merged in a number of Maghrebian Arabic varieties, including Jijel (Alge-
ria), Tangier, Tetuan, Branes, Mtioua (Morocco) (KOSSMANN 2013: 186–7;
HEATH 2002: 159). The origin of the ṭ pronunciation is unclear. HEATH
assumes a ḍ > ṭ shift and suggests one could posit that the ṭ-pronunciations
were once regular across pre‑Hilalian Maghrebian Arabic, but *nds such a
scenario ultimately unlikely (2002: 161). KOSSMANN notes that the Berber
languages adjacent to these dialects also have a ṭ, but emphasizes that the
directionality of in%uence is unclear (2013: 187). The emphatic series of
what I will conventionally term modern pre‑Hilalian appears as follows:

Table 5: Emphatics in Modern pre-Hilalian Arabic

Proto-Arabic Modern pre-Hilalian
*ṯ ̣ ṭ [tʕ]
*ṭ ṭ [tʕ]
*ṣ ṣ [sʕ]
*ṣ́ ṭ [tʕ]
*q q [q]

The traditional view holds that the [tʕ] realization of *ṣ́ and *ṯ ̣ is the result
of the devoicing of ḍ [dʕ], but this scenario is based solely on the idea that
the voiced pronunciation was original. Moreover, the sound change does
not a+ect all instances of ḍ (<*ṣ́ and *ṯ)̣ in any variety, suggesting instead
that it is an older feature, which began to give way to the spread of the
voiced ḍ of the urban koinés. Of course, one could assume an old ḍ shifted
to ṭ and then back to ḍ through lexical di+usion, but such a scenario is
needlessly complex. I would instead like to propose a di+erent interpreta-
tion, namely, that the modern pre‑Hilalian set continues the voiceless Old
Arabic con*guration. An extra stage, however, is required to bridge the gap
between the two sets – the loss of interdentals. The scenario needed to ex-

This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:18:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Pre-Hilalian Emphatics 93

plain their relationship goes as follows: the forebear of modern pre‑Hilalian,

like other dialects, merged *ṯ ̣ and *ṣ́ to the value of *ṯ,̣ which was a
pharyngealized voiceless interdental, [θʕ]. Let us call this stage “Old Ma-
ghrebian”. Following this merger, the dialect experienced the loss of inter-
dentals, like all pre‑Hilalian dialects. Thus, [θʕ] became [tʕ], along with the
shift of [ð] to [d] and [θ] to [t]. This step gives us our contemporary
con*guration.

Table 6: From Proto-Semitic to Modern pre-Hilalian

Proto-Semitic Old Arabic Old pre-Hilalian Modern pre-Hilalian
*[tθ’] *ṯ ̣ *ṯ ̣ [θ ]
ʕ
ṭ [tʕ]
*[t’] *ṭ *ṭ [tʕ] ṭ [tʕ]
*[ts’] *ṣ *ṣ [sʕ] ṣ [sʕ]
*[tɬ’] *ṣ́ *ṯ ̣ [θʕ] ṭ [tʕ]
*[k’] *q *q [q] q [q]

Evidence for a voiceless re%ex of *ṯ ̣ and *ṣ́ is found in Andalusian Arabic, in,
for example, hate < *ḥaẓẓ and almateque < *al-maḍīq (CORRIENTE 1977:
47). The voiceless realization of these phonemes voiced one, attested in
both transcriptions and loanwords, e.g. cayált ‘I spent the summer’
< *qāyaẓtu and alcalde ‘judge’ <*al-qāḍī. While these examples have also
been used to argue for a lateral realization of the re%ex of *ṣ́ and *ṯ ̣
(CORRIENTE 1989: 98), they do not provide unambiguous evidence for it.
The word alcalde contains an etymological lateral, but cayált does not, and
so one would have to assume that a merger of ẓ and ḍ took place to a
lateral, the opposite direction of this merger in other dialects. While this is
not impossible – and there is evidence in Old Arabic12 for such a shift –
another explanation is forthcoming. The l in transcription may be an
attempt to represent velarization or pharyngealization of the preceding
vowel, thus alcalde = [alqa:ʕðʕi:].13 In this case, the spelling cayált provides
evidence for a pharyngealized or verlarized realization of the re%ex of *ṯ,̣
but cannot inform us regarding its voicing con*guration, as Iberian

12 See AL-JALLAD (2015b, §3.7.4).

13 While the Castillian l is not velarized, there is little reason to assume that these
words were brought in through Castillian. Catalan, for example, has a velarized l
in coda position in most dialects, and some dialects have an unconditioned vela-
rized realization of the lateral (RACESENS – ESPINOSA 2005: 20).

This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:18:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
94 A. Al-Jallad

Romance had only a voiced lateral, [l]. Nevertheless, from the evidence at
hand, we can conclude that both voiced and voiceless re%exes of the empha-
tic lateral and interdental co-existed in Andalusia.
This hypothesis, if correct, would mean that a phonologically conserva-
tive dialect similar to the Old Arabic of the Levant was implanted in the Ma-
ghreb at an early stage. I say similar because it is impossible to know if this
dialect was indeed a re%ex of the Old Arabic of southern Syria or of an un-
attested Arabian dialect with an identical emphatic repertoire. In support of
the former theory, one may point towards another peculiar feature shared
with the pre‑Islamic Levantine dialects – the relative pronoun di, ddi, d
(HEATH 2002: 494–495). Northern Old Arabic preserved the original shape
of the relative pronoun ḏ-, which could have continued to in%ect for case or
have become frozen as either ḏū or ḏī. In one case it is preceded by the
article/demonstrative pre*x h-, hḏ */haḏḏV/.14 Old Ḥigāzī Arabic, on the
other hand, seems to have innovated a new relative pronoun based on the
demonstrative series ʾallaḏī. Could it be that the Anatolian emphatic
con*guration re%ects an Old Ḥigāzī development? It is possible, but we
have so far no evidence for the pronunciation of these phonemes in their
original context. Aside from a short inscription in the Dadanitic script, JSLih
384, our only evidence for Old Ḥigāzī is the Qurʾānic Consonantal Text
(QCT), which, on its own, tells us nothing about the phonetic realization of
its consonants independently of the reading traditions imposed upon it.
On the other side of the Arabophone world, in what is today Yemen, a
voiceless re%ex of *ṯ ̣ is also encountered, but alongside a voiced realization
of *q, [g]. Perhaps equally as important, we also *nd re%exes of the relative
pronoun *ḏV in this peripheral area as well. Such dialects may also re%ect a
development from Old Arabic directly rather than from the intermediate
stage of Old Ḥigāzī, and may have been implanted in Yemen during the
period of the conquests, if not earlier. Since both the Maghrebian and
Yemeni dialects are characterized by archaisms, there is no a priori reason to
assume a direct connection between them in order to explain these features.

4 Conclusion
The conclusion of this paper is that the voiceless re%exes of the emphatic
series, especially *ṣ́ and *ṯ,̣ continue the Proto‑Arabic situation, as re%ected
in the Old Arabic material from Syria. The mixed voiced-voiceless series
characteristic of most contemporary dialects of Arabic and the conventional
pronunciation of Classical Arabic then re%ects a departure from this situa-

14 See AL-JALLAD (2015a: 88).

This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:18:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Pre-Hilalian Emphatics 95

tion, and may be characteristic of Old Ḥigāzī, but this can only be a sugges-
tion. Its ubiquity in the Arabic dialects of today may re%ect a convergence
towards this dialect, which would have acquired considerable prestige in
the context of Arabo-Islamic civilization.

Siglum
JSLih Dadanitic inscriptions in Jaussen and Savignac 1909–1922
References
AL-JALLAD, A. (2014): Aṣ-ṣādu llatī kas-sīn – Evidence for an a+ricated ṣād
in Sibawayh? In: Folia Orientalia 51: 51–57.
AL-JALLAD, A. (2015a): An Outline of the Grammar of the Safaitic Inscrip-
tions. Leiden & Boston: Brill.
AL-JALLAD, A. (2015b): Graeco-Arabic I: the southern Levant. In: Nehmé, L.
et al (eds.): Ecrit et écriture dans la formation des identités en monde syria-
que et arabe IIIe-VIIe siècles. Leuven: Peeters.
CORRIENTE, F. (1977): A Grammatical Sketch of the Spanish Arabic Dialect
Bundle. Madrid: Instituto Hispano-Arabe de Cultura.
CORRIENTE, F. (1989): South Arabian Features in Andalusi Arabic. In:
WEXLER, P. – BORG, A. – SOMEKH, S. (eds.): Studia linguistica et orienta-
lia memoriae Haim Blanc dedicata. Wiesbaden, 94–103.
HEATH, J. (2002): Jewish and Muslim Dialects of Moroccan Arabic. London-
New York: Routledge.
HUEHNERGARD, J. (forthcoming): Arabic in its Semitic Context. In:
AL‑JALLAD, A. (ed.): Arabic in Context. Leiden: Brill.
JAUSSEN, A. – SAVIGNAC, M. (1909–1922): Mission archéologique en Arabie
(6 vols.). Paris: Leroux/Ernest Paul Geuthner. Reprint 1997, Cairo: Insti-
tut Français d’Archéologie Orientale.
KOGAN, L. (2011): Proto-Semitic Phonology and Phonetics. In: WENINGER,
S. et al. (eds.): The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook. Berlin/
Boston: de Gruyter, 54–150.
KOSSMANN, M. (2013): The Arabic InEuence on Northern Berber. Leiden: Brill.
RECASENS, D. – ESPINOSA, A. (2005): Articulatory, positional and coarticu-
latory characteristics for clear /l/ and dark /l/: evidence from two Catalan
dialects. In: Journal of the International Phonetic Association 35 (1): 1, 20.
WATSON, J. (2011): Arabic Dialects (general article). In: WENINGER, S. et
al. (eds.): The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook. Berlin-
Boston: de Gruyter, 851–896.

This content downloaded from 130.235.136.27 on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:18:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms